Thanks... hehe - got permission to come back in for a couple of minutes because the party's going on 'til Monday when my son gets back from Uni. Oh! Mrs KM thinks you lot are all mad by the way. Anyway, to answer your points:


Anyone can get married. They have to comply with the rules of course just as people must comply with rules to become a member of the ADA.


Not anyone, no - there are public safety restrictions on who can become a pilot in the US and elsewhere.


Because needlessly upsetting people should be avoided where it's possible to do so. We've proved it's possible in Europe. The definition of marriage would have to change to accommodate same sex marriage whereas it could stay the same with a separate term. That's why we have the 'mens 100m freestyle' and the 'women's 100m freestyle' - because people might get upset if the only option were '100m freestyle' - take it or leave it.


You're right - the Women's Association and women's swimming team wouldn't get very far with it either trying to exclude men from membership or participation. One would need to advance the reasons and legal merit of why the person feels bad.


No, your problem is not that people don't feel sparkly but that they have deeply held objections that are protected by law and respected in the vast majority of states and nations throughout the world.

km

The particular finding does not have the solecism: yes indeed that has been established. However, the claim that, had it indeed included the solecism it would have been the first case of a legal finding including a grammatical error--that remains to be validated. And of course you are right that the grammatical mode of your sentence is a question, but the syntactical purport of the query is to imply an affirmative response via a reductio ad absurdum presented as an enthymeme (the enthymeme expressed as a syllogism: any statement that includes such a grammatical solecism must be stupid; this one includes such a solecism; therefore the statement is silly) and so is, in effect, a logical assertion couched as a grammatical question. You can if you wish alter the evident intent of your initial post from assertion to query, but when the wind is southerly anyone can and will know a hawk from a handsaw.

Over-analytical. I asked the question before I had read the judgment. When six kindly furnished it I conceded the grammatical point straight away. Asking me to 'validate' a question after I'd withdrawn it is absurd.

km

You accuse me of being over-analytical?

Excuse me while I ventriloquize:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you still haven't responded: do you as a matter of fact know that there has never been a law passed or a judicial judgment made without a grammatical error?

You mean as in harping on a statement — regarding Obama and homophobia — after I'd withdrawn it is absurd? Thanks for, um, validating that. You da MAN!

Of course my question should read whether "there has never been a law passed or a judicial judgment made that contains a grammatical error?"

Yeah, mainly because you hadn't withdrawn it. In any case harping on is what you do - I was just reminding you that your accusations have little credibility.

km

Yes, I did respond by pointing out that I had asked a question and not made a statement.

km

Oh, but I did withdraw it, several times. Maybe those nasty IVF programs are robbing you of treatment for your short-term memory loss. Or your long-term delusion. And I wouldn't be too quick to throw "credibility" around if I were you. It's pretty clear your own account is overdrawn.

Funny how you couldn't cite any evidence of that.

km